Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Solar geoengineering research programs on national agendas: a comparative analysis of Germany, China, Australia, and the United States

  • Essay
  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Solar geoengineering (SG), or the proposed use of technology to reflect sunlight back to space as a means of partially counteracting climate change, requires systematic research funded by public bodies, yet no dedicated national SG research programs (“programs”) currently exist. To explain why and understand how things might change in the future, we add concepts from role theory, a research tradition focused on international relations and foreign policy analysis, to the Multiple Streams Approach, a theoretical framework developed to study agenda setting at the national level, to assess policy processes related to SG research in four countries: Germany, China, Australia, and the United States (US). The results of our analysis indicate that, among these four states, only the US might plausibly consider initiating a program under present conditions. Germany, China, and Australia appear likely to seriously consider comparable efforts only in response to a US program, although their reasons for doing so and specific program designs would differ. The source of this variation, we argue, is the different foreign policy paradigms—or “national role conceptions”—prevailing in each state, which mediate between domestic and international politics and help define which policy proposals qualify as viable in different countries. From a policy perspective, this suggests that the global trajectory of SG depends disproportionately on developments in the US.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Source: Felgenhauer, Horton, and Keith 2021

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

No datasets were used in the production of this manuscript.

Notes

  1. Based on personal communication with project lead John Moore.

  2. Relevant information was retrieved from the projects database of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (https://kd.nsfc.gov.cn) on 26 March 2023.

  3. MCB would involve spraying seawater into low-lying clouds to increase their reflectivity and cool underlying waters.

References 

  • Bisley N (2013) “An ally for all the years to come”: why Australia is not a conflicted US ally. Aust J Int Aff 67:403–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolukbasi HT, Yildirim D (2022) Institutions in the politics of policy change: who can play, how they play in multiple streams. J Publ Policy 42:509–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BOM CSIRO (2020) State of the climate. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

  • Buzan B (2014) The logic and contradictions of “peaceful rise/development” as China’s grand strategy. Chinese Journal of International Politics 7:381–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAN International (2019) Climate action network position on solar radiation modification (SRM). CAN International. http://www.climatenetwork.org/sites/default/files/can_position_solar_radiation_management_srm_september_2019.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2023

  • Cao L, Gao C-C, Zhao L-Y (2015) Geoengineering: basic science and ongoing research efforts in China. Adv Clim Chang Res 6:188–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao C, Li N, Li X, Liu L (2018) Reform of China’s Science and technology system in the Xi Jinping era. China: An Int J 16:120–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y (2017) International debate over geoengineering and geoengineering governance. Chin J Urban Environ Stud 3:1–15

  • Danner LK (2018) China’s grand strategy: contradictory foreign policy? Palgrave, Miami

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Demirduzen C, Thies CG (2021) A role theory approach to grand strategy: horizontal role contestation and consensus in the case of China. J Global Secur Stud 7:1–19

  • Fan S, Xue L, Xu J (2018) What drives policy attention to climate change in China? An empirical analysis through the lens of people’s daily. Sustainability 10(9):2977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Foreign Office (2019) Climate diplomacy report. Federal Foreign Office, Berlin

  • Felgenhauer T, Horton J, Keith D (2021) Solar geoengineering research on the U.S. policy agenda: when might its time come? Environ Polit 31:498–518

  • Friedrichs GM (2020) US global leadership role and domestic polarization: a role theory approach. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forschungsgruppe Wahlen (2020) Politbarometer Januar 2020. Politbarometer. https://www.forschungsgruppe.de/Umfragen/Politbarometer/Archiv/Politbarometer_2020/Januar_2020/. Accessed 27 Mar 2023

  • GBRMPA (2017) Reef blueprint: great barrier reef blueprint for resilience. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

  • Gilady L (2018) The price of prestige: conspicuous consumption in international relations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein A (2020) China’s grand strategy under Xi Jinping: reassurance, reform, and resistance. Int Secur 45:164–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake JF, Fischer W, Venghaus S, Weckenbrock C (2015) The German Energiewende - history and status quo. Energy 92:532–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MH, Li H, Svarverud R (2018) Ecological civilization: interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future. Glob Environ Chang 53:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnisch S (2011) Role theory: operationalization of key concepts. In: Harnisch S, Frank, C, Maull HW (ed) Role Theory in International Relations, 1st edn. Routledge, London, pp 23–31

  • Harnisch S (2016) Role theory and the study of Chinese foreign policy. In: Harnisch S, Bersick S, Gottwald J-C (ed) China’s International Roles, 1st edn. Routledge, London, pp 3–21

  • Harris P (2019) Between the leviathans. Issues Sci Technol 36:75–79

  • Heering J, Gustafson T (2021) Germany’s Energiewende at a crossroads. Ger Polit Soc 39:47–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti KJ (1970) National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. Int Stud Quart 14:233–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetten J, Fielding KS, Crimston CR, Mols F, Haslam SA (2021) Responding to climate change disaster: the case of the 2019/2020 bushfires in Australia. Eur Psychol 26:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones MD et al (2016) A river runs through it: a multiple streams meta-review. Policy Stud J 44(1):13–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon JW (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston

  • Klein-Alhbrandt S (2012) Choppy weather in the China seas. Le Monde Diplomatique. https://mondediplo.com/2012/12/08chinaseas. Accessed 26 Mar 2023

  • Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G (2019) Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering. Environ Politics 28(3):523–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1479101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maull HW (2015) From “civilian power” to “trading state”? In: Colvin C, Taplin M (eds) The Routledge Handbook of German Politics & Culture. Routledge, London, pp 409–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead D, Bay LK, Anthony K, Hussey K, Taylor B, Fidelman P, Mumby PJ, Harrison D, Gibbs MT, Daly J, Bryan S (2019) R4: research and development program. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Cape Ferguson

  • Merk C et al (2019) Public perceptions of climate engineering: laypersons’ acceptance at different levels of knowledge and intensities of deliberation. Gaia 28(4):348–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JC, Chen Y, Cui X, Yuan W, Dong W, Gao Y, Shi P (2016) Will China be the first to initiate climate engineering? Earth’s Future 4:588–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucciaroni G (1992) The garbage can model & the study of policy making: a critique. Polity 24:459–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee I, Howlett M (2015) Who is a stream? Epistemic communities, instrument constituencies and advocacy coalitions in public policymaking. Polit Gov 3:65–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray M (2018) The struggle for recognition in international relations: status, revisionism, and rising powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • NASEM (2021) Reflecting sunlight: recommendations for solar geoengineering research and research governance. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

  • Neumann C, Stanley SK, Leviston Z, Walker I (2022) The six Australias: concern about climate change (and global warming) is rising. Environ Commun 16:433–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohrstedt D, Mazzoleni M, Parker CF, Di Baldassarre G (2021) Exposure to natural hazard events unassociated with policy change for improved disaster risk reduction. Nat Commu 12:193–203

  • Oschlies A, Klepper G (2016) Research for assessment, not deployment, of climate engineering: the German Research Foundation’s Priority Program SPP 1689. Earth’s Future 5(1):128–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu J (2014) China’s funding system and research innovation. Natl Sci Rev 1:161–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reef Trust Partnership (2020) Annual work plan 2020–2021. Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Brisbane

  • Rickels W, Klepper G, Dovern J, Betz G, Brachatzek N, Cacean S, Güssow K, Heintzenberg J, Hiller S, Hoose C, Leisner T, Oschlies A, Platt U, Proelß A, Renn O, Schäfer S, Zürn M (2011) Large-scale intentional interventions into the climate system? Kiel Earth Institute, Kiel

  • Ruszel M (2017) Strategic goals of energy security policy of the Federal Republic of Germany. Politeja 5:113–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenuit F, Colvin R, Fridahl M, McMullin B, Reisinger A, Sanchez DL, Smith SM, Torvanger A, Wreford A, Geden O (2021) Carbon dioxide removal policy in the making: assessing developments in 9 OECD cases. Front Clim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.638805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi T (2001) Cultural values and political trust: a comparison of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. Comp Polit 33:401–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streb CK (2010) Exploratory case study. In: Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E (ed) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, 1st edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 372–373

  • Schneider L (2022) High-risk geoengineering technologies won't reverse climate breakdown. Climate Home News. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/03/01/high-risk-geoengineering-technologies-wont-reverse-climate-breakdown/. Accessed 26 Mar 2023

  • Temple J (2022) The US government is developing a solar geoengineering research plan. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/01/1055324/the-us-government-is-developing-a-solar-geoengineering-research-plan/. Accessed 26 Mar 2023

  • Thies C (2010) Role theory and foreign policy. In: Denemark R (ed) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, 1st ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 6335–6356

  • Thies CG (2019) Australia’s role conceptions in a multipolar world. In: Massie J, Paquin J (eds) America’s Allies and the Decline of US Hegemony. Routledge, London, pp 99–109

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Third National Assessment Report on Climate Change Editorial Committee (2015) Third national assessment report on climate change. Science Press, Beijing

  • Turnbull M, Cash M, Frydenberg J (2018) Investing in the future of our great barrier reef. Australian parliament house. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/5764046/upload_binary/5764046.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22media/pressrel/5764046%22. Accessed 26 Mar 2023

  • Tyson A, Kennedy B (2020) Two-thirds of Americans think government should do more on climate. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC

  • UBA (2021) Climate impact and risk assessment. UBA, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • USGCRP (2017) National global change research plan 2012–2021: a triennial update. USGCRP, Washington, DC

  • Visschers VHM, Shi J, Siegrist M, Arvai J (2017) Beliefs and values explain differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey. Clim Change 142:531–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang B, Zhou Q (2020) Climate change in the Chinese mind: an overview of public perceptions at macro and micro levels. Wires Clim Change 11(3):e639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanser K, Wong A, Karspeck A, Esguerra N (2023) Near-term climate risk and intervention. SilverLining. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63583aa27052940c5faeec7d/t/63f540ef0ffe916de722e796/1677017396553/Roadmap+Report+Final+%28WEB%29. Accessed 26 Mar 2023.

  • Yao B, Cui W (2020) Adaptability discussion of multiple-streams framework in chinese context: a literature review. Adv. Bus, Econ Manag Res 150:228–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis N (2014) Ambiguity and multiple streams. In: Sabatier PA, Weible CM (eds) Theories of the policy process, 3rd edn. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp 25–58

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Horton, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua B. Horton.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research did not involve humans or animals. All authors agree with the content, give explicit consent to submit, and obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institutes/organizations where the work was carried out.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horton, J.B., Brent, K., Dai, Z. et al. Solar geoengineering research programs on national agendas: a comparative analysis of Germany, China, Australia, and the United States. Climatic Change 176, 37 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1

Keywords

Navigation